|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
 Posted - 06/05/2011 : 11:38:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by changingmyself
You need to look up what freewill means, because free means without limits in my dictionary and freewill in my dictionary means without limits also. Can you tell me what dictionary you are using to get your definition of freewill?
|
Definition of "Free Will":
Per Merriam-Webster
1: voluntary choice or decision
2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
Per Cambridge:
the ability to decide what to do independently of any outside influence
Per Oxford:
The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
Per MacMillan:
the idea that people can choose what to do and are responsible for their own actions, especially compared to the theory that everything people do is already decided by God or fate
Per Encarta:
the ability to act or make choices as a free and autonomous being and not solely as a result of compulsion or predestination
Which dictionary are you using that defines "free will" as being "without limits"?
|
All of the above.
con·straint
1. A limitation or restriction.
So Per Oxford:
"The power of acting without the constraint" means without limits or restrictions of necessity or fate.
"of necessity" of such a way that it cannot be otherwise
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/necessity
fate
Noun: The development of events outside a person's control, regarded as determined by a supernatural power.
Which as I have said repeatedly, as soon as the OT god acted in his own interest to make sure his 'plan of salvation' occurred by hardening of hearts and sending out his evil spirits, we no longer have freewill.
Not to mention the
verses concerning predestination or the mention of 'God's' will in the Lord's Prayer.
|
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
| Edited by - changingmyself on 06/05/2011 11:55:40 |
 |
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2011 : 12:17:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by changingmyself
You need to look up what freewill means, because free means without limits in my dictionary and freewill in my dictionary means without limits also. Can you tell me what dictionary you are using to get your definition of freewill?
|
Definition of "Free Will":
Per Merriam-Webster
1: voluntary choice or decision
2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
Per Cambridge:
the ability to decide what to do independently of any outside influence
Per Oxford:
The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
Per MacMillan:
the idea that people can choose what to do and are responsible for their own actions, especially compared to the theory that everything people do is already decided by God or fate
Per Encarta:
the ability to act or make choices as a free and autonomous being and not solely as a result of compulsion or predestination
Which dictionary are you using that defines "free will" as being "without limits"?
|
All of the above. |
No, none of the above say that "free will" means without any limits at all. You claimed earlier that our inability to flap our arms and fly means that we don't have free will, but none of them back up any such idea.
Constraint means...
con·straint/k#601;n#712;str#257;nt/Noun
1. A limitation or restriction.
So Per Oxford:
"The power of acting without the constraint" means without limits or restrictions of necessity or fate. |
Yes, of "necessity" and "fate" in particular. It doesn't say, or suggest, "without any constraints at all".
| "of necessity" of such a way that it cannot be otherwise |
Right, which only means that we can't use our free will to do the impossible.
You're clearly shooting for some kind of technicality here with the definitions, but no one reading any of the above definitions would think they mean that having any limits to our choices means that we don't have free will at all.
fate
Noun: The development of events outside a person's control, regarded as determined by a supernatural power.
Which as I have said repeatedly, as soon as the OT god acted in his own interest to make sure his 'plan of salvation' occurred by hardening of hearts and sending out his evil spirits, we no longer had freewill. |
Of course we do. Because that only limited certain people at certain times. That has no bearing on whether free will exists in the first place.
Besides, you seem to believe that free will doesn't exist in the first place (correct me if I'm wrong). If so, then God's actions can't have taken it away, since you can't take away what no one has.
"Predestination" doesn't refer to "everything we do". Even if, hypothetically, some things are predestined, that doesn't mean that everything we do is. Thus we still have free will. |
| Edited by - KingDavid8 on 06/05/2011 12:18:12 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2011 : 13:24:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Only if I chose to do so. But let's suppose, hypothetically, that I wanted to do the exact opposite of what God said I would do, just to see what would happen. In that case, I wouldn't get up off the couch and get a glass of water. In which case God, being omniscient, would know that His telling me that I would get the water would cause me not to. In which case, He wouldn't tell me that I would get the water, since He would know that I wouldn't do so. Only if I absolutely would end up choosing to get the water in ten minutes would He predict that I would.
|
You don't see how that isn't sending ripples back to the beginning of time where God's omniscience is negated by you having a hard time choosing what to do, and making him not tell you something he just decided to do?
You're no longer only exercizing free will, but you're forcing you will on God and controlling him. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2011 : 14:09:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
The problem is that your hypothetical assumes that I'm going to end up getting the water. In other words, it assumes that I don't have free will and can't choose not to do so. |
The hypothetical assumes that you would end up getting the water because God foresaw you doing it. Foreseeing you drinking the water is the foundational premise of the entire hypothetical.
Since God foresaw you drinking water, you will end up drinking the water. No matter what you do, you would end up drinking the water, because that's what God saw you do. You cannot choose not to drink the water because that can not happen because God has already seen that you never did otherwise. Even if you decided not to drink, you would still drink, because if you didn't then God wouldn't have seen you drinking, which we already know he did. The basic premise is that God did see everything you would eventually end up doing. Which means that at the time God came to possess the knowledge of the future time-line, that time-line became set.
So in your hypothetical, are you assuming that no matter what happens, I will get the water? If so, then, yes, God would predict that I would get the water and would be right. But it's not God's omniscience that's removing the possibility of me not getting the water, it's your hypothetical that is doing so. |
The hypothetical is logically constructed on the basic premise that God is omniscient. As such, the hypothetical shows that omniscience is logically incompatible with free will.
Constructing a hypothetical situation is our only way to test the premise that God is omniscient because we don't have any direct access to any omniscient gods which to use to test it.
Edited to add:
The hypothesis applies to any decision you are faced with. Since omniscience means that God knows your entire life to every single microsecond, everything that happens to you and all decisions you make, the hypothesis we made does not only apply to your choice where you end up drinking the water - as God foresaw you - but it also applies to anything else you might or might not do.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 06/05/2011 14:25:26 |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2011 : 16:00:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Only if I chose to do so. But let's suppose, hypothetically, that I wanted to do the exact opposite of what God said I would do, just to see what would happen. In that case, I wouldn't get up off the couch and get a glass of water. In which case God, being omniscient, would know that His telling me that I would get the water would cause me not to. In which case, He wouldn't tell me that I would get the water, since He would know that I wouldn't do so. Only if I absolutely would end up choosing to get the water in ten minutes would He predict that I would.
|
You don't see how that isn't sending ripples back to the beginning of time where God's omniscience is negated by you having a hard time choosing what to do, and making him not tell you something he just decided to do? |
God's omniscience isn't negated at all. If I will end up getting the drink, God knows I will. If I won't, He knows I won't. If I would change my action based on what He says, then He knows I would.
You're no longer only exercizing free will, but you're forcing you will on God and controlling him.
|
I don't think that God knowing what we will do equals controlling Him or forcing our will on Him. I'm sure that if He got involved in the way that the hypothetical suggests, it would be His own doing. |
| Edited by - KingDavid8 on 06/05/2011 16:01:00 |
|
|
|
changingmyself
Skeptic Friend
USA
122 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2011 : 16:01:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by changingmyself
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Originally posted by changingmyself
You need to look up what freewill means, because free means without limits in my dictionary and freewill in my dictionary means without limits also. Can you tell me what dictionary you are using to get your definition of freewill?
|
Definition of "Free Will":
Per Merriam-Webster
1: voluntary choice or decision
2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
Per Cambridge:
the ability to decide what to do independently of any outside influence
Per Oxford:
The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
Per MacMillan:
the idea that people can choose what to do and are responsible for their own actions, especially compared to the theory that everything people do is already decided by God or fate
Per Encarta:
the ability to act or make choices as a free and autonomous being and not solely as a result of compulsion or predestination
Which dictionary are you using that defines "free will" as being "without limits"?
|
All of the above. |
No, none of the above say that "free will" means without any limits at all. You claimed earlier that our inability to flap our arms and fly means that we don't have free will, but none of them back up any such idea.
Constraint means...
con·straint/k#601;n#712;str#257;nt/Noun
1. A limitation or restriction.
So Per Oxford:
"The power of acting without the constraint" means without limits or restrictions of necessity or fate. |
Yes, of "necessity" and "fate" in particular. It doesn't say, or suggest, "without any constraints at all".
| "of necessity" of such a way that it cannot be otherwise |
Right, which only means that we can't use our free will to do the impossible.
You're clearly shooting for some kind of technicality here with the definitions, but no one reading any of the above definitions would think they mean that having any limits to our choices means that we don't have free will at all.
fate
Noun: The development of events outside a person's control, regarded as determined by a supernatural power.
Which as I have said repeatedly, as soon as the OT god acted in his own interest to make sure his 'plan of salvation' occurred by hardening of hearts and sending out his evil spirits, we no longer had freewill. |
Of course we do. Because that only limited certain people at certain times. That has no bearing on whether free will exists in the first place.
Besides, you seem to believe that free will doesn't exist in the first place (correct me if I'm wrong). If so, then God's actions can't have taken it away, since you can't take away what no one has.
"Predestination" doesn't refer to "everything we do". Even if, hypothetically, some things are predestined, that doesn't mean that everything we do is. Thus we still have free will.
|
It doesn't say that freewill is limited and that is what you are attempting to add to make it fit into your ideology. You missed the whole "Thy (God's) will be done on earth as it is in heaven" which is asking for God's intervention. If God intervenes then free will is taken away, which he did intervened in the bible several times.
fate/f#257;t/
Noun: The development of events outside a person's control, regarded as 'determined by a supernatural power'.<<<<read
Freewill is free, without limitations of necessity or fate. Predestination is "God's" decision that you are going to go to heaven also known as fate.
This is what everyone has been attempting to get you to see for pages now. This isn't a loop hole, we are showing you the contradictions in your own bible/belief which you refuse to see and you have made things up in your own mind to overlook those contradictions.
For instance, it says that the OT god 'hardened the Pharaoh's heart' to take a census. So if the OT god hardened the Pharaoh's heart, the 'lord' intervened and the Pharaoh did not have freewill.
If you force someone to do something by coercion, you take their free will away from them, whether it is to take a census or do your bidding.
Do you think that slaves have/had freewill?
|
"The gospels are not eyewitness accounts"
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
|
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2011 : 16:31:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
The hypothetical assumes that you would end up getting the water because God foresaw you doing it. Foreseeing you drinking the water is the foundational premise of the entire hypothetical. |
Which would also mean that me having no choice but to get the water is also assumed. In other words, it assumes I don't have free will, at least in this matter.
| Since God foresaw you drinking water, you will end up drinking the water. No matter what you do, you would end up drinking the water, because that's what God saw you do. You cannot choose not to drink the water because that can not happen because God has already seen that you never did otherwise. Even if you decided not to drink, you would still drink, because if you didn't then God wouldn't have seen you drinking, which we already know he did. |
So you agree that the hypothetical assumes that I don't have free will, right? If I don't have free will, then I would have no choice but to do what God foresaw. But if I do have free will, then what God foresees will depend on what I ultimately decide to do, not the other way around. Which is exactly what I'm saying is the case. God's foreknowledge doesn't cause us to choose what we do. It's just knowledge. If I ultimately choose to drink the water, then God knows I will choose to drink the water. If I ultimately choose not to, then God knows I will choose not to.
| The basic premise is that God did see everything you would eventually end up doing. Which means that at the time God came to possess the knowledge of the future time-line, that time-line became set. |
Which is another way of saying that I will end up choosing what I will end up choosing, but that's true whether God foresees it or not. And it still doesn't mean that I don't actually make the choice myself. Eventually, every choice I make in my life will have come to pass and then be un-alterable. God just knows me so well that He knows what those choices will end up being.
| The hypothetical is logically constructed on the basic premise that God is omniscient. As such, the hypothetical shows that omniscience is logically incompatible with free will. |
As I already pointed it out, it's set up to assume that I don't have free will, that I will have no choice but to do what God predicts. I've already shown you how it will work out if we remove the assumption and instead say that I have free will. If I end up choosing not to drink the water, then God, being omniscient, won't predict that I will drink it. Thus showing that God's omniscience in that hypothetical wouldn't necessarily conflict with my free will. As long as we aren't assuming I don't have free will, that is.
| Constructing a hypothetical situation is our only way to test the premise that God is omniscient because we don't have any direct access to any omniscient gods which to use to test it. |
Then let's construct a hypothetical which doesn't assume that I don't have free will, but also doesn't assume that God isn't omniscient. Then let's see if I can't work out a solution that still leaves both ideas intact. Though if I can't, it could just be a failing on my part, and not necessarily disprove God's omniscience and/or free will.
| The hypothesis applies to any decision you are faced with. Since omniscience means that God knows your entire life to every single microsecond, everything that happens to you and all decisions you make, the hypothesis we made does not only apply to your choice where you end up drinking the water - as God foresaw you - but it also applies to anything else you might or might not do. |
The purpose of the hypothetical was to see what would happen if God specifically told me what I would do. If God isn't telling me, then there's no possibility of a visible conflict. |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2011 : 16:45:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by changingmyself
It doesn't say that freewill is limited and that is what you are attempting to add to make it fit into your ideology. |
That it's limited is pretty obvious, since we can't flap our arms and fly around the city, for example.
| You missed the whole "Thy (God's) will be done on earth as it is in heaven" which is asking for God's intervention. If God intervenes then free will is taken away, which he did intervened in the bible several times. |
Only if He intervenes 100% of the time in 100% of the matters, which He obviously does not. As long as we make some choices in our lives, we have free will.
| Freewill is free, without limitations of necessity or fate. Predestination is "God's" decision that you are going to go to heaven also known as fate. |
Which, again, doesn't mean that I lack free will in all matters. Simply arguing that there are some things that happen to be beyond my control doesn't mean that I control nothing at all.
| For instance, it says that the OT god 'hardened the Pharaoh's heart' to take a census. So if the OT god hardened the Pharaoh's heart, the 'lord' intervened and the Pharaoh did not have freewill. |
In that particular matter, yes. But that doesn't make it so that nobody at all has free will in any matter at all. I'm sure, being a Pharaoh, that he made many other decisions over the course of his lifetime, both before and after the census. So the pharaoh still had free will.
And again, you said earlier that you don't believe we have free will, didn't you? If so, then God's intervention CAN'T remove free will, since we don't have it to begin with. Correct me if I misunderstood, please.
| If you force someone to do something by coercion, you take their free will away from them, whether it is to take a census or do your bidding. |
Only in that particular matter. It doesn't make it so that the person lacks free will for the rest of their life.
| Do you think that slaves have/had freewill? |
Yes. It's certainly more limited than it would be for others, but I'm sure that even slaves make many choices in their lives. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2011 : 18:57:36 [Permalink]
|
kingdavid8 said:
That it's limited is pretty obvious, since we can't flap our arms and fly around the city, for example.
|
Clearly you fail to understand more than just logic. The ability to fly or not has nothing to do with free will. Free will is about you making choices, not you being able to grant yourself random powers at will.
You are trying to defend a position on omnipotence (Descart's) that is entirely incompatable with the ideas of cause-->effect and logic.
I'll grant that you are pretty good at the creationist tactic where you repeat the same debunked nonsense over and over until everyone else gives up on you (you will no doubt declare victory at that point too), but your endless repetition of nonsense is just that, nonsense.
I also understand why you have to resort to semantics, because if you can't force definitional changes then you can't make your case. Your worldview depends on your intentional distortion of logic and definitions.
You can't escape the conclusion though, if your omnipotent god created you, then it also created your choices and your decisions.
Just own up to the fact that you can't logically reconcile omnipotence and free will, and then move on. Stop retreading your failed apologetics and stop trying to redefine words to fit your incorrect notions.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2011 : 19:39:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
kingdavid8 said:
That it's limited is pretty obvious, since we can't flap our arms and fly around the city, for example.
|
Clearly you fail to understand more than just logic. The ability to fly or not has nothing to do with free will. Free will is about you making choices, not you being able to grant yourself random powers at will. |
Yeah, that's the point I was making. ChangingMyself was saying that since we're limited in what we can do, we don't have free will at all. I'm saying that free will is simply the ability to make choices to some degree, even though it's limited by things like the laws of physics and other factors. She's saying that limited free will is not free will at all. I'm saying it is.
| You are trying to defend a position on omnipotence (Descart's) that is entirely incompatable with the ideas of cause-->effect and logic. |
So are you saying I'm putting "Descartes" before the horse?
The assumption here seems to be that since God foresees what we will do, His foresight causes us (in some way) to make the choices we will make. I think that's incorrect. Simply saying that A comes before B doesn't mean that A causes B.
God foresees what we will do because He is omniscient. We make the choices we will make because we have free will. The two ideas are not dependent on each other, and neither does one cause the other.
| I'll grant that you are pretty good at the creationist tactic where you repeat the same debunked nonsense over and over until everyone else gives up on you (you will no doubt declare victory at that point too), but your endless repetition of nonsense is just that, nonsense. |
The problem is that no one has debunked what I've said. Disagreed, sure. But I have yet to see anyone show that God's foreknowledge of our choices in some way causes us to make the choices that we do. Knowing that something is going to happen doesn't cause it to happen, directly or indirectly.
| You can't escape the conclusion though, if your omnipotent god created you, then it also created your choices and your decisions. |
So are you saying that an omnipotent God would be unable to create beings with free will?
| Just own up to the fact that you can't logically reconcile omnipotence and free will, and then move on. |
But I can, simply by showing that omnipotence only means that He knows what decisions we will make. It doesn't mean that He, in some way, causes us to make those decisions. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that we have free will, God's omniscience wouldn't take it away from us.
| Stop retreading your failed apologetics and stop trying to redefine words to fit your incorrect notions. |
Which words do you think I've tried to redefine? |
| Edited by - KingDavid8 on 06/05/2011 19:44:40 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2011 : 20:16:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Which words do you think I've tried to redefine? |
"Assume," for one. You getting a glass of water is the logical consequence that follows from the premises that god is omniscient and that he's not lying to you when he told you that he foresaw you getting a glass of water. I didn't assume that you would, because for you to not get a glass of water, god would either have to have lied to you, or god would have to not be omniscient, neither of which is consistent with the traits of god as laid out in the Bible. So within the hypothetical, if you were to not get water, it would mean necessarily that your god wasn't your god, thus mooting the hypothetical entirely.
So, you getting the water wasn't assumed, it was deduced. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2011 : 21:47:33 [Permalink]
|
kingdavid8 said:
| I'm saying that free will is simply the ability to make choices to some degree, even though it's limited by things like the laws of physics and other factors. |
You are, again, trying to say that absolute free will would mean you could grant yourself random abilities at will. Again, you obviously don't understand some simple concepts like the difference between decision making and the ability to give yourself abilities you previously did not have. Free will means you have the ability to make choices that are available to you, it has nothing to do with granting yourself random powers.
Talking to you is starting to become like talking to a wall. A pointless activity.
The assumption here seems to be that since God foresees what we will do, His foresight causes us (in some way) to make the choices we will make. I think that's incorrect. Simply saying that A comes before B doesn't mean that A causes B.
|
And you intentionally deflect into a strawman yet again. I'd say I'm shocked, but I'm not. I'm just annoyed by your garden variety stupidity.
What I'm sayin is this: If your god knows everything you will ever do before he creates you, then the logical consequence of that knowledge and act of creation is an abscence of free will. Your god made you with prior knowledge of every choice you will make, therefore that act of creation means your every act is intended by your god. So the sequence of events is this: Knowledge of your every action is know, you are created (and your actions and decisions are created), then you carry out those actions. You are reduced to being an instrument of divine intent as a consequence of that knowledge and the act of creation.
The only way to have free will is if there is no omnipotence.
Obviously you are trying to defend the same (and near universally rejected) type of omnipotence that Descart argued for, one in which things like logic and cause-->effect are completely ignored, where omnipotence can bring two mutually exclusive propositions together and have them both exist at the same time (i.e. paradox). If that lets you get through the day, then whatever. You have to recognize that it is entirely indefensible if you also want to justify your beliefs in any sort of logical framework. You know, one of those evidence based approaches that you use for every other thing you think about.
Religion poisons the mind, and you appear to have a bad case of poisoning. I hope you recover from it soon.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2011 : 00:10:12 [Permalink]
|
In more detail, now:Originally posted by KingDavid8
Where someone is telling me that I'm arguing something that I'm not, and I have to correct it? No, I don't want get to that level of argument. I'm pretty sure I know what I'm arguing here. |
You're clearly not thinking things through to their logical ends.| The problem is that your hypothetical assumes that I'm going to end up getting the water. In other words, it assumes that I don't have free will and can't choose not to do so. |
Again, no: your lack of free will is a logical conclusion when given the premises "god is omniscient" and "god is honest," and god happens to tell you what you're about to do.| So in your hypothetical, are you assuming that no matter what happens, I will get the water? |
No, the hypothetical is that god tells you that you're going to get the water. What follows is a logical consequence of that utterance coupled with the assumptions that god is both omniscient and honest.| If so, then, yes, God would predict that I would get the water and would be right. But it's not God's omniscience that's removing the possibility of me not getting the water, it's your hypothetical that is doing so. |
No, the consequence of you not getting the water is either proving that god is wrong or a liar.| As long as I have free will, I might not end up getting the water, and if I don't, God, being omniscient, wouldn't predict that I absolutely will (unless you're also assuming in your hypothetical that God isn't omniscient). |
But in the hypothetical, god does "predict" you'll get the water. If your argument is nothing more than to argue in favor of a completely different hypothetical (one in which god doesn't tell you what you're about to do), then it's no counter-argument to mine. It's simply smoke and mirrors.| Sure it can, if He's omniscient. Or are you assuming that God can only know about things that physically exist at the time He sees what they will do? If so, then you're assuming God isn't omniscient. |
No, I'm arguing that things that don't exist at the beginning of god's existence cannot impose their non-existent will on god's perceptions.| That's true. But that still doesn't mean I don't have the choice. It only means that God knows what I will choose. If I will choose "A", then God knows I will choose "A". If I will choose "B", then God knows I will choose "B". But the choice between "A" and "B" is still my choice. That God simply knows what it will be doesn't change this. |
And god has told you what you're about to choose. He knows you'll choose "A," and has told you so. Can you then choose "B?" Only if god is wrong or a liar.| So is your hypothetical assuming that me killing my family is inevitable, that I can't choose otherwise? If so, then it's your hypothetical that is removing my free will, not God's omniscience. |
No, for god to tell you that you're about to do something that you're not about to do logically requires god to either be wrong (not omniscient) or a liar.| As long as your hypothetical allows me the free will to kill my family or not, then all God knows is whether I will or not. If I will, God knows that I will. If I won't, God knows that I won't. If what God tells me will change the outcome, then God knows that what He tells me will change the outcome. |
If god tells you "you're going to get ice water" when he knows you're not, then he lied to you.| Being omniscient, he wouldn't predict that I will, and tell me so, if the end result is that I won't. |
In the hypothetical, he told you that you will. Stop trying to change the hypothetical to squirm your way back to having free will.
If we can agree, for the sake of this discussion, that god is both omniscient and honest, then the hypothetical can only be of two forms. One is that god tells you you're about to do something, in which case if you don't do that thing then we must conclude that either god lied to you or he was wrong. The other is that god keeps his visions to himself, and hypothetical is pointless because it can have no bearing on the question being discussed. You keep arguing for the latter, even though you agree (below) that there'd be nothing to discuss, and despite the fact that it wasn't the hypothetical put to you in the first place.| If you're saying that God's prediction might end up being wrong in the end, then you're assuming that God is not omniscient. |
You are the one demanding that god might be wrong, by insisting that even though god tells you that you're about to get some ice water, you might not.| Basically, your hypotheticals seem to be assuming that I don't have free will, or assuming that God isn't omniscient. |
No, the hypothetical is a demonstration that logically, you get to pick between belief in free will for yourself, or belief in omniscience for god. You cannot believe both in a logically consistent world because they contradict each other.| As long as you drop those assumptions... |
They're not assumptions, they're conclusions.| ...I can show you an outcome in which my free will and God's omniscience are both intact at the end. As long as I can do so, God's omniscience is not incompatible with my having free will. |
Please do, anyway.| Right. If it wasn't written down, we wouldn't be discussing it. |
Bingo! If god doesn't tell you what you're about to do, then your illusion of free will can remain intact. If (and this is the key to the hypothetical) god pierces the veil and tells you how you will choose, then the illusion is shredded. Just because god chooses to keep the illusion in place by not telling you what he knows you will decide doesn't mean that free will is not an illusion.| Because it isn't a problem, since omniscience is only about knowing. It doesn't cause us to choose what we do. |
Listen to what I've been telling you: Logically speaking, if god is omniscient, then you cannot choose what god hasn't foreseen you choosing. To do so would be to prove that god isn't omniscient, which would be contrary to the assumption that he is. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2011 : 04:02:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by KingDavid8
Which words do you think I've tried to redefine? |
"Assume," for one. You getting a glass of water is the logical consequence that follows from the premises that god is omniscient and that he's not lying to you when he told you that he foresaw you getting a glass of water. |
So you're assuming that God's prediction is the cause and me getting the water is the effect. The fact that one precedes the other does not mean that one causes the other.
| I didn't assume that you would, because for you to not get a glass of water, god would either have to have lied to you, or god would have to not be omniscient, neither of which is consistent with the traits of god as laid out in the Bible. |
No, if I didn't get the water, then God wouldn't predict that I would. |
|
|
|
KingDavid8
Skeptic Friend
USA
212 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2011 : 04:15:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
You are, again, trying to say that absolute free will would mean you could grant yourself random abilities at will. |
No, I am not. That's what ChangingMyself is arguing. I'm arguing otherwise.
| Again, you obviously don't understand some simple concepts like the difference between decision making and the ability to give yourself abilities you previously did not have. Free will means you have the ability to make choices that are available to you, it has nothing to do with granting yourself random powers. |
I totally agree. That's what I'm trying to tell ChangingMyself. She's saying that limited free will is not free will. I'm saying it is.
The assumption here seems to be that since God foresees what we will do, His foresight causes us (in some way) to make the choices we will make. I think that's incorrect. Simply saying that A comes before B doesn't mean that A causes B.
|
And you intentionally deflect into a strawman yet again. I'd say I'm shocked, but I'm not. I'm just annoyed by your garden variety stupidity. |
So do you agree that God's foresight doesn't, in some way, cause us to make the choices we do? If so, then do you agree that, even with God's omniscience, we still have free will? If not, why not?
| What I'm sayin is this: If your god knows everything you will ever do before he creates you, then the logical consequence of that knowledge and act of creation is an abscence of free will. Your god made you with prior knowledge of every choice you will make, therefore that act of creation means your every act is intended by your god. |
No, it's just known by God. An omnipotent God can create beings with free will. And being omniscient, He would logically know everything that they will do. But that doesn't equal all of our actions being intended by God. Just known.
| So the sequence of events is this: Knowledge of your every action is know, you are created (and your actions and decisions are created), |
Disagree there. Our actions and decisions are "created" when we do them. They're only known prior to that, but, again, it's only knowledge. Not control or intention.
| The only way to have free will is if there is no omnipotence. |
Are you arguing that an omnipotent God can't create beings with free will?
| Obviously you are trying to defend the same (and near universally rejected) type of omnipotence that Descart argued for, one in which things like logic and cause-->effect are completely ignored, |
No, I'm just not assuming that A preceding B means that A causes B. (A and B being God's foreknowledge and our decisions, respectively).
| where omnipotence can bring two mutually exclusive propositions together and have them both exist at the same time (i.e. paradox). |
They aren't mutually exclusive, though, as long as we're acknowledging that omnipotence only refers to knowledge, not intention or control. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The Mythicist position
